GARY MANESS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gary Maness was convicted of manslaughter for causing the death of his infant child through culpable negligence by assaulting the child with his hands and fists. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for directed verdict, admission of photographs and his confession, and the court's refusal to allow him to impeach his own witness. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.
The trial court committed no reversible error. The record contained competent substantial evidence of guilt sufficient to support the conviction; the photographs were relevant and not gruesome; impeachment of the defendant's own witness was properly denied under the circumstances where the defendant's own confession corroborated the wife's testimony; and the confession was freely and voluntarily given.
[1] Competent and substantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.
[2] Photographs of a victim's injuries are admissible if relevant and not unduly gruesome.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record discloses competent substantial evidence of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged, amply sufficient to support the conviction.”
Establishes that the trial court properly denied the directed verdict motion because sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManess was charged by information with manslaughter in the death of his infant child. The charge alleged he caused the death by culpable negligence th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impeachment Of Own Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
By information the appellant was charged with the crime of manslaughter (§ 782.07 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). The information alleged the defendant caused the death of his infant child by culpable negligence by assaulting the child with his hands and fists. Upon trial before a jury he was convicted. He was sentenced by the court to imprisonment for twenty years. The defendant appealed.
Upon consideration of the several contentions of error submitted by the appellant, in the light of the record and briefs, we find them to be without merit. Denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was not error. The record discloses competent substantial evidence of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged, amply sufficient to support the conviction.
*717Denial of defendant’s objection to introduction into evidence of photographs, disclosing injuries of the child, was proper. The photographs were not gruesome, and clearly were relevant. See Kitchen v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 667; Karl v. State, Fla.App.1964, 144 So.2d 869; Lipford v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 16; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 257; Dillen v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 904. Moreover, all photographs which were offered were not admitted. The record shows there was extended discussion relating thereto, and that the court refused to admit photographs showing the entire body of the child, and admitted those which the court considered relevant that revealed the nature and appearance of injuries to the face and head.
An attempt by the defendant to impeach his own witness was properly denied by the court, on objection by the state. Exceptional circumstances which would require a contrary ruling thereon were not present or shown. The witness involved was the defendant’s wife. She testified she had gone to a store for a short time; that when she left the child was all right, and when she returned the child was in the injured condition. In an effort to impeach the witness the defendant proffered testimony of another witness to the effect that the wife had told the latter she did not go to the store on the occasion in question. However, the defendant by his written confession which was presented in evidence was shown to have admitted striking the child during the time his wife was at the store. Therein he stated his wife had gone to the store, that the baby started crying, that he struck the child, etc. and that his wife returned a few minutes later. In the circumstances disclosed, the challenged ruling of the court was not error. See Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356, 22 So.2d 781; Foremost Dairies, Inc., of the South v. Cutler, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 37.
The admission of the confession of the defendant was not error. Its admissibility was determined by the court upon hearing outside of the presence of the jury. The record supports the conclusion of the trial judge that the confession was freely and voluntarily given.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1945)
- Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Cutler, 212 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Kitchen v. State, 89 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1956)
- Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Karl v. State, 144 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Royal Servs., Inc. v. Amcor, Inc., 195 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Lipford v. State, 161 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)